Reply to FCPS Boundary Review Updates

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "FCPS Boundary Review Updates"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

[i]Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.
 
Elementary Schools:  When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for   rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for  rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration.   Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5  in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .
 
Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.  
 
High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students.  Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.  
 
Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary. [/i]
 [/quote]

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me. [/quote]

It is much easier socially and academically to move an elementary school kid to a new school than a teenager, especially in this county with so many transient families.

It is very fifficult and often harmful to move a teenager,  especially a high school student.  Ask the many military families who have done both many times iver.

This is actually a very reasonable grandfathering policy.  The only improvement it needs is a sibling clause, so families don't have 2 high schoolers at different schools.[/quote]

DP. Selfish take from someone who likely benefits from the high school policy and doesn’t care about other people’s elementary school kids.

I’m getting really sick of people thinking they know what’s best for other people’s kids.[/quote]
[b]Historically grades 2-5/6 have been grandfathered.[/b] Rarely has FCPS grandfathered all elementary students. I think rising 4-5/6 would be more appropriate since 3rd grade is a big transition year, regardless, with AAP kids moving around. [/quote]

Check your history book.  Grade 3 is a transition year but that AAP junk [I had kids in it] should not drive the boundary review.  And at ES and MS level AAP should not be used as mobile fillers because FCPS doesn't change base school boundaries. Colvin Run opened 2003-04.  6th grade only had the grandfathering option and 31 6th graders hopped on the CRES bus.  Note might have been  the AAP ers previously at Forest Edge.  You can see per grade counts on the VDOE website so check out the grades for each new school that has opened since 2003.

Spring Hill Mclean HS Tysons island has not been reviewed in 25 years. And the Churchill Rd modular might be reaching or near the endpoint of it's useful life.   [/quote]
Fine, replace “historically” with “recently.” The Justice elementary adjustments and Kent Garden adjustments grandfathered rising grades 2-5/6. Rising kindergartners and 1st graders went to their newly assigned schools.

The transition for rising 4-5/6 is simply my preference that anyone can disagree with. In fact, recently rising 2nd graders were grandfathered, so it hasn’t been based on a 3rd grade transition year.[/quote]

The grandfathering has been done via case by case.  Kent Gardens is unusual due to the French Immersion.  That program went in because the school was undercapacity and now it's 70% base school.  So boundary changes made the program even more NA for non base school students etc.  It needs to be moved.  Perfect example of inequity in program availability.

Hunters Woods is another one that removes capacity based on program transfers.  [b]It's in a key location for base school boundary changes[/b] yet has massive inflow for Waples Mill AAP plus magnet.  No big local level iv at Waples Mill. Magnet went in with fed grant money and now might cost 800k out of the operating budget.  That would pay for lots of field trips acoss title 1 schools.[/quote]

NP. I am having difficulty following the point you are making. Are you suggesting that Hunters Woods should stop inflow as a magnet (due to lost federal funds) to free up capacity at the school to take on new students as part of a boundary change? Was Hunters Woods ever mentioned in any proposal?

Also, Waples has a growing local level IV program with declining overall membership. Are you suggesting Waples should stop sending students to Hunters Woods for AAP?

Catch the rest of us up with your thinking, please. [/quote]

I'm unfamiliar with the issues here, but [b]it would appear that all of these magnet and AAP programs really create confusion on boundary changes.  Maybe, they should start with getting rid of those programs.[/b][/quote]

Bingo.  The obvious issue with each and every boundary is the AAP and magnet shuffling around.  AAP kids need to stay at their base schools.  That, for one, would eliminate much unnecessary confusion and redundancy.
DP[/quote]

Our SB member said that she’d like to change AAP as well, but that’s not happening simultaneously with the boundary changes. I tend to think that one affects the other. Example- a split feeder is being corrected to all go to one middle/HS. All AAP transfers go to the middle/high that the smaller split used to go to. This means that they are going to a center that’s not within their pyramid even a little bit. Why? This also means that the current split actually has way more kids going to the “smaller split” than are identified when just using base school student data. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics